Why does no one talk about the most effective military tactic?
You go to the person's house, and murder their family, preferably with fire.
This tactic has been the go to for the US military in every conflict for the past 100 years.
Nothing takes the fight out of people like hearing their family burned alive.
it isn't really the most effective military tactic, for instance the nazis attempted to use it against britain and it backfired
Sounds like what's gonna happen when (((their))) servants try to take our guns.
Yeah.
that doesnt work at all..
>for instance the nazis attempted to use it against britain
How did they do that? They never even reached them. However, the bombing of german cities by Harris and his crooks made the nazis even more fanatical.
France and Greece, however....
en.wikipedia.org
en.wikipedia.org
The Nazis were not able to effect such a tactic on a scale required to make a difference.
OPs premise is correct.
An integral part of warfare has always been killing the families and sympathizers.
Only recently is America playing "catch and release" with various sand niggers, and that's why they fail so badly at COIN.
After the Chechen war, the Russians would pulverise the corpses of suspected fighters by strapping them to artillery rounds, and designating the families as Pariahs, so the wives, mothers and sisters of Jihadists would have no means to seek employment and would have to resort to begging or prostitution to feed their families.
We do, it's just that this place is so fucked up those tactics turn insanely dark really fucking fast, and even here, it's not the best plan to keep staring into that abyss.
sauce?
Nice satire.
>killing them
Waste of resources. What you do is sell them into slavery, in small groups so they can't organize and too far away to cause trouble, and preferably to a different society so that any trouble is between them and their new hosts and not you.
Give sources or you made this shit up
>the nazis attempted to use it against britain and it backfired
Britain and America literally firebombed German cities on a massive scale, killing hundreds of thousands of civilians. Which is effectively OP's point, just on a larger scale than burning down a house.
the thing is that those bombings were retaliation for the british cities being bombed and it still didn't do an effective job of demoralizing the population/army
>retaliation for the british cities being bombed
Is that what they told you?
Harris himself it was to instill terror in the population, that was the doctrine back then.
They would have done it even if the nazis had not attacked London.
fair enough, but my point was more that the germans introduced the tactic and used it first i'm not trying to say that terror doctrine doesn't generally work when properly applied, but it isn't something that works 100% of the time against every foe
also the lower level soldiers probably went along with it because they saw it as revenge, and didn't have to directly confront the results of the bombings themselves as opposed to ground troops burning families alive and having to deal with the weight of killing civilians first-hand
>bombing London
>not an attemp
Not entirely. US and Brits took it to whole new level by fire bombing. No military purpose other than to just show the rest of what they could do and what was coming.
US just needs to go classic Roman. Kill all enemies and salt their lands so nothing can ever grow there again.
in what world would killing somebodys family weaken their resolve instead of stengthening it? the only reason it would be effective is depriving the man of resources.
But Germany is prospering now. If anything, it was to deplete resources, including manpower and political will. What alternative use when this is the first time mass heavy bombers were ever used in history?
It's a threat, not a tactic. OP is a moron.
It's effective, but only effective at intimidating (potential) future opponents.
>That doesn't work at all..
Hold my beer
Faggots. "Burn the village" has been the main tactic used against insurrections and insurgencies for millennia. From Rome against the Gual's to the Union against the South. Just keep burning them till either A) They give up and start ratting each other out for survival. Or B) they no longer exist.
It's unbelievable how little force on force training and just training in general law enforcement receive. That whole thing was just one perpetual shitshow.
We now live in an interconnected world with light-speed communication and treaties on war conduct. The only people who can get away with it anymore are cartels and rogue states. Also, it's not even really that effective against a motivated and supplied opponent. Just look at Vietnam.
Because every nation pretends they don't do it too.
Fire rescue on a presumably abandoned home isn't force on force, and they perforated him after his initial blast. He then killed himself.
>The only people who can get away with it anymore are cartels and rogue states
The people who can get away with it is us because we right the fucking rules and singlehandedly enforce them. Insurgents are unlawful combatants and legally, you are allowed to fucking execute them. Villages and towns that support them can be legally classified as partisan's and can get fucked. There is actually more legality in doing this shit than you think.
>Also, it's not even really that effective against a motivated and supplied opponent. Just look at Vietnam.
Vietnam? As in that place where we weren't even allowed to attack the country we were directly fighting against? That place ?
You're fucking retarded, you don't "right," any rules you dumb faggot. Think how public and international opinion would dwindle and turn against the country if we started executing civilians on a land we, "liberated." Your second post is a stupid Non sequitur, and you sound like you're just barely north of 12 years old. Fuck off, retard.
International opinion means fuck all when we spend our days drone striking countries hundreds of times a month. Public relations doesn't fucking matter at all for a superpower. Most people hate you anyways just by default. You're not executing civilians either you raging fucking faggot. Wasting a village that fucking breeds insurgents and actively supports them is taking out a partisan camp. And you are absolutely retarded bringing up Vietnam. A war where again, we were never allowed to even go into and fight the country that was engaging us, and two. Was constantly being cucked by Washington at every point in the war. Thinking you can achieve anything through hearts and minds strategy is quite literally the most retarded thing ever to be devised by a military force. But keep attacking me instead you fucking cunt. Shuffle off
The edge coming of this post is palpable.
what would you have done captain america
What a faggot kinda response. Obviously in the video, these officers had absolutely no fucking idea what to do. On top of that, you could see the lack of command and control going on as well. There was zero coordination and cooperation going on. What this can tell you, if you were conducting an AAR on this video as a department. Is to show yourself that your officers require a lot more team training and force on force. There was absolutely no control of the situation at all throughout the whole video.
So did I ever say, "Wow, these guys are faggots, watch me do better"? No. I didn't. Get the fuck off your high horse.
Pretty sure hes talking about Tokyo in the context of WW2.
>international sanctions mean nothing on our import/export as a country
Like I said, fuck off retard.
>the nazis attempted to use it
implying Dresden didn't happen.
Dipshit, they knocked for 20 minutes on a presumably abandoned home with smoke coming out of it. When Fire knocked the door, they ate buckshot and then they perforated the subject. The suspect then ended himself.
This isn't a military doorkicker operation, it was a fucked up fire and rescue.
>sanctions mattering fuck all to the worlds one and only superpower
Okay.
Yes, trade regulation does. You dumb fuck kid. Holy shit, you are goddamn stupid.